Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

My teenager regularly goes browsing for music on iTunes. Then he mentions good stuff to us (we all happen to like jazz/sax). His friends also suggest things to him - probably let him listen to it on their device. He likes Piano Guys - found them on YouTube. My wife also browses for music, movies, and TV programs regularly. In other words, other than word-of-mouth, actively looking for stuff.

Seeing or hearing something passively as it goes by isn't the only way.

That all sounds very time-consuming and in this day, with all that people have going on, who, among adults, has time to sit down and actively look for music, TV, etc? We are a very passive country, and we tend to go with we know. I work hard on a daily basis, the last thing I want to do is work to find entertainment content.

From a technology perspective, absolutely. From a business perspective...will ESPN let themselves be contained in a sports only tier? Will CNN and FOX be contained in a news tier? What about a channel that does movies and family and something else? I don't know. Hard to see how that works.

Another thing is advertising income for small, obscure channels. A big company such as Discovery Communications has a few "high profile" channels such as Discovery Channel and TLC, but also has a number of "lesser" channels such as Military Channel and Fit&Health.

In negotiating with carriers, they will want to include the "lesser" channels in the deal as they know not a lot of people would actually want to pay for these channels individually, and they run a much better chance of someone seeing their advertisements if they can promote the channel on the high profile channels, or if it is placed very close in number to the high profile channels for those just flipping channels and stumbling on something interesting.

The few attempts I have seen at "a la carte" in Canada, Europe, and the U.S. usually end up offering you packages. A "viacom" package that includes ALL of the MTV/VH1 stuff, or a "discovery" package that includes ALL of the Discovery stuff.

The box Intel offers is not a breakthrough in technology, it really isn't much more than a glorified Roku that can do some more things. From a technological point a view, a box like this could have been launched 10 years ago. It isn't the technology that is allowing (or restricting) a a-la-carte type service, it is the companies who own the content. And these companies are not going to want to split up their channels and charge individually for them, as it will most certainly drop their viewership of each channel, including the high-profile ones. And less viewers is less advertisement is less money. They would have to price the channels so high to offset this loss in revenue, it really doesn't make any business sense.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

Last time I checked a la carte does exist in the form of the various private BitTorrent sites that exist and thrive. Simply keep that ratio kosher and all is well.

Yes. But the content that can be downloaded via those sites is not offered with the consent of the owner of said content. One can argue the legality of a torrent site (as they actually do not store ANY content, just a link that allows hundreds of hosts to share said content), but having the content on your hard drive, and subsequently uploading it to others (to keep the ratio kosher) is copyright infringement and illegal under U.S. laws.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

Yes. But the content that can be downloaded via those sites is not offered with the consent of the owner of said content. One can argue the legality of a torrent site (as they actually do not store ANY content, just a link that allows hundreds of hosts to share said content), but having the content on your hard drive, and subsequently uploading it to others (to keep the ratio kosher) is copyright infringement and illegal under U.S. laws.

But what if I subscribe to two providers and sub to every movie channel on one of those providers(fios)? Yeah, didn't think so but the practice continues and the communities thrive...Thanks for the quick lesson in US copyright law though..

Hulu (Plus) fails to reach critical mass in features. That doesn't automatically mean the concept is rejected by consumers.

Just a quick check of their capabilities (their web site is strangely devoid of information) shows a few killers: 1) only streaming [supported on TiVo but it sounds like you can't use DVR functionality with their content], 2) no CBS network, 3) max 720p ("when available").

Here I discuss a winning way to do this. Not streaming "live", more of a On Demand method. Off-hours bandwidth utilization. Then consumer has DVR functionality and 1080i/p is less impact. As I stated in that post - the problem is content jail.

Although, I find it interesting that many claim this will never happen due to distribution companies owning their content and not wanting to break their monopoly (er, I mean model) yet lots of them... well... did do something different with Hulu.

Hulu (Plus) fails to reach critical mass in features. That doesn't automatically mean the concept is rejected by consumers.

Just a quick check of their capabilities (their web site is strangely devoid of information) shows a few killers: 1) only streaming [supported on TiVo but it sounds like you can't use DVR functionality with their content], 2) no CBS network, 3) max 720p ("when available").

Here I discuss a winning way to do this. Not streaming "live", more of a On Demand method. Off-hours bandwidth utilization. Then consumer has DVR functionality and 1080i/p is less impact. As I stated in that post - the problem is content jail.

Although, I find it interesting that many claim this will never happen due to distribution companies owning their content and not wanting to break their monopoly (er, I mean model) yet lots of them... well... did do something different with Hulu.

Sure. they tried. Couldn't make enough money to make them abandon the existing model. Ther'es no overwhelming need or demand for this, and it's not proving to be all that profitable. Businesses need both of those things to shift paradigms. All you have now is a small number or people kavetching yet still paying for the current model.

I also find it interesting that you point to the internet as the pipe. I find a great potential for hypocrasy there. On one hand - you want to pay for only what you consume when it comes to video distribution, but how many Internet video a la carte advocates would apply that same pricing model to their data consumption?

And Sirius XM is extremely successful. It's got over 20MM subscribers, which is comparable to Netflix. it's also more profitable, while delivering slightly less revenue. I bring up Netflix because it's the largest most prominent player in the cord cutting a la carte on demand movement. You've shown no data to support your assertion that broadcast is dying.

Your model is far too complicated, and requires too much planning and pre-work to watch television. It might work for you, but it's not going to work the the legions of average people that just want to watch Jay Leno for 30 minutes before falling asleep. Or what about when i just want something on in the background - call it the news - that i don't have to pay close attention to.

And it certainly won't work for Sports, which are DVR proof and have to be watched live.

I typically use something called a "radio" for that. Not only is the content free, it consumes less electricity than my television/home theater.

That's cool, but what if i don't want to do it that way? What if i prefer.... Headline News or TNT? You forcing your preferences on me is as ridiculous as me telling you that you need to watch CNN instead of listening to the radio. Care to decide what I'm having for dinner tonight as well?

And BTW - according to unixguru, broadcast is dead, so you might want to find a podcast or something.

And it certainly won't work for Sports, which are DVR proof and have to be watched live.

Not true. Sports are neither DVR proof nor do they have to be watched live. Many of us watch on delay, recording it and starting to watch an hour or more into it to avoid yakking taking head pregame crap and commercials and halftime/intermissions. I watch almost all the sports I really care about that way.

That's cool, but what if i don't want to do it that way? What if i prefer.... Headline News or TNT? You forcing your preferences on me is as ridiculous as me telling you that you need to watch CNN instead of listening to the radio. Care to decide what I'm having for dinner tonight as well?

And BTW - according to unixguru, broadcast is dead, so you might want to find a podcast or something.

I never meant to imply that you should be limited to my preferences, merely that there are options and stating what I choose to do. I don't think that I gave any direction to anyone on what they should do. I poked around a bit and admittedly was not able to find an audio stream of HLN, but I am currently listening to CNN via TuneIn. Thanks for the (indirect) suggestion. I was unaware that TNT had news.

Given the amount of money that OTA has very recently invested in the digital transition I don't agree with unixguru that broadcast is dead.

Kevin

My top 5 wishlist: 1) Free MRV HR to HR 2) Fix Channels I Receive so that it is accurate 3) > 50 SeriesLink 4) Usage of both internal and external drives concurrently 5) Support for other video providers as DoD (i.e. Hulu, CBS)

Not true. Sports are neither DVR proof nor do they have to be watched live. Many of us watch on delay, recording it and starting to watch an hour or more into it to avoid yakking taking head pregame crap and commercials and halftime/intermissions. I watch almost all the sports I really care about that way.

+1

Kevin

My top 5 wishlist: 1) Free MRV HR to HR 2) Fix Channels I Receive so that it is accurate 3) > 50 SeriesLink 4) Usage of both internal and external drives concurrently 5) Support for other video providers as DoD (i.e. Hulu, CBS)

Not true. Sports are neither DVR proof nor do they have to be watched live. Many of us watch on delay, recording it and starting to watch an hour or more into it to avoid yakking taking head pregame crap and commercials and halftime/intermissions. I watch almost all the sports I really care about that way.

I think you'll find that you are the exception and not the rule. There are many people who have no issue with or even prefer to watch sports on a delay - my father is one of them - but you'll find many more people who prefer to watch the game live. And any a la carte, on demand, streaming solution needs to have a way that (up to) millions of people can stream a game live in HD - and Unix's system did/does not address that. And much like Tuba, you are basically saying "I'm ok with delayed viewing, and it works for me, so you should be ok with it as well".

Personally - with smart phones and various other forms of media - i find it very difficult to not know the outcome of a sports event I'm interested in. And it takes some of the enjoyment out of it for me knowing the outcome. I would not care to rely on a system where delayed viewing is the norm. You want the buy in of millions of mainstream sports fans, you need a solution that allows us to watch whatever we want at no more than what I'm currently paying (or what I'm paying in whatever year this future takes place in), on whatever device i choose, and whenever we want (whether that's LIVE or whether that's on demand at a later time). T

I think you'll find that you are the exception and not the rule. There are many people who have no issue with or even prefer to watch sports on a delay - my father is one of them - but you'll find many more people who prefer to watch the game live. And any a la carte, on demand, streaming solution needs to have a way that (up to) millions of people can stream a game live in HD - and Unix's system did/does not address that. And much like Tuba, you are basically saying "I'm ok with delayed viewing, and it works for me, so you should be ok with it as well".

Personally - with smart phones and various other forms of media - i find it very difficult to not know the outcome of a sports event I'm interested in. And it takes some of the enjoyment out of it for me knowing the outcome. I would not care to rely on a system where delayed viewing is the norm. You want the buy in of millions of mainstream sports fans, you need a solution that allows us to watch whatever we want at no more than what I'm currently paying (or what I'm paying in whatever year this future takes place in), on whatever device i choose, and whenever we want (whether that's LIVE or whether that's on demand at a later time). T

That's not what I'm saying at all. I happen to agree that on-demand type distribution is not a great business model at this time, and I respect those who chose to watch sports live. My only comment was to the poster who claimed sports are "DVR-proof," when they are no such thing. For me and for many others, we can avoid knowing the score for a few hours and it's worth the extra effort to avoid commercials, intermissions and pregame blather. I know I'm in the minority and that's fine. To each their own.

Alright fair enough. How about I change it to DVR proof for many people?

And DVR proof is an SR term. It refers to the fact that sports are one of the remaining programs that people don't DVR and still command high ad dollars because networks and advertisers know people Are watching live.